Satire Cartoon and Discussion

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

That is complete and utter nonsense.

Iraq posed no real threat to Israel ever since the Israeli Air Force destroyed the Iraqi

nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981. During the 1991 Gulf War, when Iraqi Scud missiles

rained down on Tel-Aviv, Israel didn't retaliate only because US military leaders pleaded

with them to turn the other cheek. Israeli retaliation would have fractured the ever so

fragile "US-Arab coalition."

So no, don't give me your usual "it's Israel's fault that the sky is blue" rhetoric.

And no, the war was not "for oil" -- it's part of a bigger and much more ambitious plan.

Deny all you want, but anyone can look it up for themselves. Many reading this will Google the key terms for themselves and see that what I've written is the truth. Yes, it's a bigger and much more ambitious plan. But not to benefit the U.S.

[mawilson 2,133]

Deny all you want, but anyone can look it up for themselves. Many reading this will Google the key terms for themselves and see that what I've written is the truth. Yes, it's a bigger and much more ambitious plan. But not to benefit the U.S.

What you've written is the truth, except the part where you claim it was all done for Israel's benefit.

A strong Iran and a U.S.-occupied Iraq on the verge of civil war is NOT better for Israel

than a strong Iraq under Saddam Hussein, even if they could save 20% buying oil from

Iraq instead of Russia.

[desert_fox 32]

WoM

wake up and smell the roses. The US does not go to war to spread democracy...especially among those who dont know what it is and would rather be ruled by some dictator, royal family, or religious nuts. We go there to establish a presence and secure our future for access to resources......OIL !!!!

Support of Israel is because of NY...there are more Jewish ppl in NYC and Long Island than there are in Israel....they control the money and control the US relationship towards Israel. No US Senator in NY State would ever get elected without supporting Israel.

I hear the Gaza has no electricity......wonder why.

[mawilson 2,133]

Let's revive the original post's discussion. If you wish to continue posting about the secondary topic please post here :

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...15&start=15

thanks!

Sounds good.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

i'd like for it to be noted that i've not said one derogatory word in this........

[smoke20 0]

i'd like for it to be noted that i've not said one derogatory word in this........

noted

[Caladan 19]

I have a colleague who used to work for Israeli military intelligence, and from discussions with him (he's been out of it for about four or five years, so he's out-of-date on current stuff, but not on general thinking), I suspect mawilson's theories here are closer to correct. Iraq has a lot of resources, the U.S. has an interest in being the de facto if not de jure owner of those resources (mostly because it keeps them from Russia), we have a history of bad blood with Saddam Hussein whose track record was brutal anyway, and post-9/11 the administration realized they had the political will to do whatever they wanted because the American people were looking around for someone to smack. I suspect that rhetoric about Israel belongs in the same category with 'liberating Iraqi', the 'flypaper theory' and 'yellowcake from Nigeria.' And I figured the administration thought we'd be in for a repeat of 1991 with an easy aftermath, and no one would care what the reasons were once the results were good.

Saddam Hussein was a secular power, too. According to my friend, at least, what scares the ###### out of Israeli intelligence is the thought of Iran with the bomb. Whether that fear is justified or not is a separate matter, but I get the sense from him that Iraq, while brutal, was pretty much a stable, known quantity. Iran's the real worry for Israel.

[allousa 1]

This issue is so much deeper than Iraq.

Caladan, I agree with the points of what you said, but I tell you what scares ME...the fact that Israeli has far more nuclear capability than any Middle Eastern country! Often I hear the argument that the Israelis can be "trusted" or are more "responsible" with nuclear weaponry. I say, just look to the annihilation of Lebanon recently. There are radical elements within Israel, just as there are radical elements within MENA. It is the people in the middle that are just struggling to survive that get caught in the middle.

Case in point...it is NOT the governments of Middle Eastern countries OR Western countries that are helping to rebuild infrastructure and giving basic needs to the people. It is Hezbollah and Hamas that have done more for the people. All of this "aid money" pledged by other governments go to bolster the opposing force. Most often times, the much needed aid never gets to the people themselves. I absolutely DO NOT SUPPORT suicide bombings nor attacks on innocent civilians. But if my family were starving, I would not put my political values before the basic needs of my family, especially my child. If he needed food, water or shelter, I would do ANYTHING to help him survive. For people in Iraq, Gaza, West Bank, Afghanistan and Lebanon, the people go to those that help them.

With all of the technology and intelligence available in this world, WHEN is going to become apparent that these issues will NEVER be solved by means of military might and violence. Change can ONLY be brought on a social and political level.

Bombing a society of people will not change their hearts and minds...be they Muslim, Jewish OR Christian.

Edited August 23, 2007 by allousa

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Iraq posed no real threat to Israel ever since the Israeli Air Force destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.

Oh really ? One would wonder then, wouldn't one, why Perle, Feith & Associates' 1996 instructions to then-Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu would so strongly urge that Saddam needed to be removed as the first order of business. More on that in just a moment .... but first --

During the 1991 Gulf War, when Iraqi Scud missiles rained down on Tel-Aviv, Israel didn't retaliate only because US military leaders pleaded with them to turn the other cheek. Israeli retaliation would have fractured the ever so fragile "US-Arab coalition."

After announcing that Saddam "wasn't any threat," you immediately switch to the opposite tack about Scuds "raining down on Tel Aviv." This is typical Zionist schizophrenia -- or rather "double talk," if you will -- where Israel is loudly proclaimed to be the Amazing Fearless Megaforce of the Middle East able to stomp Arab butt at the drop of a kippah... and yet at the same time, it's a tiny helpless victim being terrified by evil Arab boogeymen, whom Zionist ultrahawks keep agitating for the U.S. to destroy for them.

Well anyway... about those Scuds, since you bring them up -- according to the Pentagon, exactly 42 Scuds were lobbed at Israel, out of a total of 93 that were launched out of Iraq. Almost every single one of these landed in unpopulated areas in Israel -- not "on Tel Aviv" as you claim. And they caused very little damage.

Fact: this oh-so-scary "rain" of Scuds only managed to kill a single Israeli. (However, another 15 Israelis died from their own panicked reactions -- some had heart attacks while cowering in their state-of-the-art personal home bomb shelters, some suffocated in their state-provided gas masks because they didn't know how to put them on properly, and some accidently overdosed themselves in their rush to gulp down a state-provided chemical weapon antidote, which caused a deadly reaction in several.)

The Scuds were actually a much more serious danger to coalition troops -- 28 U.S. soldiers were killed when a Scud hit their barracks in Saudi Arabia, along with a Saudi security guard. (But as far as I know, no Saudis or Americans "panicked" themselves to death.) And neither the U.S. nor Saudi Arabia deemed it necessary to start carpet bombing Iraq. Instead, they stuck to the plan -- simply chasing Saddam's army back out of Kuwait. And afterwards, the devastating economic sanctions were imposed.

And the U.S.-Arab coalition wasn't "ever so fragile" at all. Plenty of the members (like Saudi Arabia) hated Saddam a lot more than they hated Israel. The main worry about Israel entering the war wasn't that it might "threaten to split the coalition." The reason Israel was ordered to stay home was because American military leaders DIDN'T WANT THEM THERE. They were well aware of the IDF's track record -- it's full of a bunch of loose cannons who press the panic button at the very first sight of combat, and who can't seem to pass up any opportunity to wipe out as many Arab civilians as they can.

Real battle isn't nearly the same thing as prancing around in full combat dress, brandishing M16s at a captive population of mostly unarmed, miserable, destitute Palestinians.... or conducting target practice on schoolgirls on their way to class, or little boys playing soccer. Real war isn't nearly as much fun as dropping a one-ton bomb from the safety of an uncontested F-16 onto a 10-story apartment building filled with sleeping families, or the always-enjoyable sport of forcing pregnant women to give birth in the dirt rather than allow them to cross a checkpoint to a hospital. Or the millions of other "diversions" Israeli soldiers have invented to amuse themselves by tormenting an entire people who have little or no recourse to fight back.

The last thing actual military professionals want or need is IDF loonies gumming up a real battle plan -- that's why they're NEVER invited to the party.

So, Israel was ORDERED to stay out of it, and despite all its chest-thumping to save face, really had no choice but to obey the orders of He Who Writeth Their Welfare Checks. But for the next 12 years, a powerful group of Israeli right-wingers and American sympathizers with open loyalties to Zionist aggression dreamed of "revenge."

And finally, their chance arrived.

Now that we've done away with this diversion, on to the main topic.... continued in my next post....

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

So no, don't give me your usual "it's Israel's fault that the sky is blue" rhetoric.

And no, the war was not "for oil" -- it's part of a bigger and much more ambitious plan.

I don't believe I've ever mentioned the sky or Israel's influence on its color. In fact I believe I've been quite specific about the topic at hand -- the plan to remove Saddam being hatched in Israel by far-right pro-Israel extremists and warmongers, in order to (in their opinion) benefit Israel. The architects of the plan were American neo-cons with openly pro-Israel, anti-Arab political agendas -- most of them are admittedly right-wing Zionists -- and all with undeniable personal and professional ties to the Israeli state.

What you've written is the truth, except the part where you claim it was all done for Israel's benefit.

First you deny the whole thing as "complete and utter nonsense." Then, when faced with the unpleasant but unavoidable fact that the whole history of this disgusting collusion is on public record for anyone to see, you switch canoes in mid-stream.

So let us take a closer look at the architects of the original plan to invade Iraq -- the authors of "A Clean Break: Strategy for Securing the Realm," written as advice to the Israeli government. And let us review their extremist political agendas, their close ties to like-minded Israeli political and business leaders, and especially their powerful positions in the Bush administration -- actually influencing and directing U.S. policy in the Middle East. (As mentioned before, anyone can easily confirm this information with a quick Google search. Who was it who said the best way to hide was in plain sight ?)

Exhibit A - Richard Perle, Study Group Leader

Perle is a former chairman of the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon, former Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of Defense, and member of a whole slew of neo-con think-tanks, including Project for a New American Century, the Hudson Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

He also happens to be co-chairman of Hollinger, Inc. (the media empire owned by convicted mail fraudster and obstructor of justice Conrad Black) and is a director of the Jerusalem Post (owned by Hollinger.)

Perle has been a long-time advocate for the removal of Saddam Hussein. As noted above, he was the lead author of the report written for Netanyahu -- "A Clean Break: Strategy for Securing the Realm" -- which advocated a plan for regime changes across the Middle East.

This original plan called for the removal of Saddam, and every other government in the area (including Egypt) that might dare to oppose Israel's desire to bully the entire neighborhood. It was a blueprint of actions that it advised Israel take in order to make sure it was the baddest bully in the schoolyard.

The plan openly advocated that Israel discard the Oslo Accords and the entire concept of "land for peace" with the Palestinians and its other Arab neighbors, in favor of forcible military conquest and occupation. Netanyahu and his successor Ariel Sharon adopted almost every single recommendation of the plan as the core strategy of their administrations, essentially declaring war on the peace process along with the entire Arab world.

Days after 9/11, Perle started making public claims that Saddam Hussein had ties to Osama bin Laden. In 2002, in an effort to convince Americans of what a cakewalk an Iraq invasion would be, he proclaimed that "Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. Now, it isn't going to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."

Perle was a staunch supporter of disgraced "Iraqi defector," convicted embezzler and accused Iranian double agent Ahmed Chalabi, continuing to back him even after the CIA and State Department had totally discredited the guy.

Perle was also the genius who suggested that the U.S. needed only about 40,000 troops to successfully invade and occupy Iraq, and he (along with cabal member Paul Wolfowitz) publicly whined about General Eric Shinseki's assessment that at least "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to do the job properly (which of course turned out to be a much more correct estimate.)

So Perle had a definite political agenda when it came to Israel, wrote up his recommendations for the Israeli government, then used his position as member of the U.S. Department of Defense to push the United States to carry them out.

Exhibit B - Douglas Feith - signatory

Feith is basically a lawyer, but thanks to friends in high places, he rose to become Undersecretary of Defense Policy at the Pentagon.

He entered politics in the Reagan administration as a Middle East specialist on the National Security Council, then transferred to the Pentagon to work under his mentor Richard Perle. He also earned lots of money working as a lobbyist for various clients including the Turkish government, and major defense contractors such as Lockheed-Martin and Northrop Grummon.

Feith vehemently objected to most of the peace deals made by Israel over the years, specifically the Camp David peace agreement and the Oslo Accords. He is a self-proclaimed Zionist, a dyed-in-the-wool Likudnik who opposed any return of the territory which Israel illegally occupied, and he was also a vociferous proponent of Israel's illegal settlement project to colonize and annex Palestinian land.

Feith's resume includes serving on the board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) -- the warmonging neo-con Washington think-tank that promotes a military and strategic alliance between Israel and the United States, rejects any "peace process" with the Palestinians that includes the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state, AND (surprise surprise) endorses "regime change" in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, among others.

And Feith was a founding member of One Jerusalem, a group dedicated to "saving a united Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel."

Inside the Bush administration, it was Feith who headed the controversial Office of Special Plans at the Pentagon from September 2002 to June 2003. This was the neo-cons' private intelligence propaganda shop (now dismantled) which "cooked the books" to manipulate intelligence in order to drum up support for the invasion of Iraq.

Perle's pal Ahmed Chalabi pops up again and again in Feith's skullduggeries. And Feith has been singled out as the one who provided the White House with all sorts of stories of Iraq-Al Qaeda links, which of course turned out to be completely false.

So Feith had a definite political agenda when it came to Israel, helped write the plan for the Israeli government, and then used his power and influence at the Pentagon to carry out the recommendations, using all means at his disposal to spin the plan as "in American interests."

Exhibit C - David Wurmser - signatory

Wurmser is yet another longtime advocate of the overthrow of Saddam. He served as Middle East advisor to ####### Cheney until just this summer. Previously, he worked at the State Department as a special assistant to John Bolton, the under-secretary for arms control and international security. He's also one of the gang at the American Enterprise Institute along with his buddy Richard Perle.

In 1999, Wurmser wrote a book called "Tyranny's Ally: America's Failture to Defeat Saddam Hussein," which claimed that Saddam's power was growing and that he trying to amass weapons of mass destruction.

In the now familiar pattern, Wurmser claimed in 2000 that Syria was developing WMDs, and called for the U.S. to attack it.

After 9/11, his buddy Feith appointed Wurmser as part of a secret Pentagon intelligence unit, which immediately recommended that the U.S. attack Iraq.

So Wurmser also had a definite agenda when it came to Iraq, helped write the blueprint for the Israeli government, then used his power and influence inside the Bush administration to push it into U.S. policy, to carry out the recommendations.

And I've not even started with the rest of the PNACers, but I'll let folks have a chance to digest this first.

In short: a cabal of neo-con fanatics managed to divert American foreign policy to turn the U.S. into a proxy mercenary force for what they believed would be the ultimate benefit of Israel.

A strong Iran and a U.S.-occupied Iraq on the verge of civil war is NOT better for Israel

than a strong Iraq under Saddam Hussein, even if they could save 20% buying oil from

Iraq instead of Russia.

LMAO. "As if" the plan was for a strong Iran and an Iraq on the verge of civil war ! No, that's not what the neo-cons had in mind, and you know it. Only the scheme didn't work out at all like it was supposed to. I'll address that in my next post.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

The Scuds were actually a much more serious danger to coalition troops -- 28 U.S. soldiers were killed when a Scud hit their barracks in Saudi Arabia, along with a Saudi security guard. (But as far as I know, no Saudis or Americans "panicked" themselves to death.) And neither the U.S. nor Saudi Arabia deemed it necessary to start carpet bombing Iraq. Instead, they stuck to the plan -- simply chasing Saddam's army back out of Kuwait. And afterwards, the devastating economic sanctions were imposed.

although every time one of them was lauched, we had to go into mopp IV. rather hairy times back then. and they were notoriously inaccurate. that one that hit the barracks btw i've heard was hit by a patriot and damaged. and the plan was to kill the army per powell/schwartzkopf not chase it out of kuwait.

And the U.S.-Arab coalition wasn't "ever so fragile" at all. Plenty of the members (like Saudi Arabia) hated Saddam a lot more than they hated Israel. The main worry about Israel entering the war wasn't that it might "threaten to split the coalition." The reason Israel was ordered to stay home was because American military leaders DIDN'T WANT THEM THERE. They were well aware of the IDF's track record -- it's full of a bunch of loose cannons who press the panic button at the very first sight of combat, and who can't seem to pass up any opportunity to wipe out as many Arab civilians as they can.

i'm more inclined to believe it was due to the coalition being fragile. we had the syrians on one side of us and they pretty much did their own thing without any liasion. more on that if you'd like. just how many arab nations would really want to fight with an israeli force on their flank?

The last thing actual military professionals want or need is IDF loonies gumming up a real battle plan -- that's why they're NEVER invited to the party.

the idf is well regarded amongst professional military due to their track record. not sure where you got info that contradicts that.

Edited August 27, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[mawilson 2,133]

The last thing actual military professionals want or need is IDF loonies gumming up a real battle plan -- that's why they're NEVER invited to the party.

the idf is well regarded amongst professional military due to their track record. not sure where you got info that contradicts that.

Charles,

"This is typical anti-Israel schizophrenia -- or rather "double talk," if you will -- where Israel

is loudly proclaimed to be the scourge of the Middle East threatening the stability and security

of an otherwise peaceful region, while at the same time petulantly trying to declare the other

side "victorious" in their battle against the "weak" and "impotent" IDF."

As for the rest of WoM's comments, she's so blinded with her hatred of Israel and one-sided view

of the conflict, she's become completely unhinged from reality.

She's too far gone to be saved.

[mawilson 2,133]

Fact: this oh-so-scary "rain" of Scuds only managed to kill a single Israeli. (However, another 15 Israelis died from their own panicked reactions -- some had heart attacks while cowering in their state-of-the-art personal home bomb shelters, some suffocated in their state-provided gas masks because they didn't know how to put them on properly, and some accidently overdosed themselves in their rush to gulp down a state-provided chemical weapon antidote, which caused a deadly reaction in several.)

Yes. You seem rather upset about that.

But as far as I know, no Saudis or Americans "panicked" themselves to death.

So you're comparing the reaction of U.S. and Saudi troops with that of Israeli civilians?

How f*cking sick.

I'd like to see how you would react if your town was attacked by Scud missiles

potentially carrying chemical warheads. I'm sure you would know how to put on

a gas mask properly on yourself and your children or others who need assistance, being

such a f*ing brave American.

[allousa 1]

"She's too far gone to be saved"

God, when I read that #######, I actually felt bile rise up in my throat. Saved...from what?

I just wonder, have you yourself been personally affected by what has happened? Have you been inside Gaza or the West Bank to even know what life is like there? Time and time again, I hear the same vile, racist and my religion or ethnicity is better than yours from people that have NEVER been to that part of the world and experienced first hand what goes on there.

While I myself have not been to Gaza, my husband and his family have. My inlaws were born and raised in a village in the Gaza Strip called Abassan. They can trace back their lineage for at least the last two hundred years. My father inlaw was forced to flee in the late 60's because the IDF were rounding up school teachers at the time and throwing them in jail. They frantically left with a son and daughter for Morocco. They have never been allowed to return to Gaza to live. My father inlaw has since lost property that he owned. Two sets of family members had their homes bulldozed four years ago for which they had a 15 minute warning to get their valuables and get out. My husband lost an uncle a couple of years ago because IDF came to the family's house looking for a brother that they claimed was a militant that they wanted to question. The family started arguing with the soliders because the brother was innocent. The argument escalated and a soldier ended up shooting the brother that answered the door. The soldier was NEVER reprimanded...NOTHING. My sister inlaw's daughter has become so frightened of the jets that fly over on an almost daily basis, that she actually vomits because she is so frightened. When my mother inlaw goes to visit her daughter and her family, most of the time she is waiting at the border for no less than three weeks because the border crossing is shut down. She is 68 fuc*ing years old!!!! This is just one family out of thousands and thousands that this happens to on a daily basis. When MK talks about how "gunned up" IDF soldiers are, I know what she's talking about. I ask you to put yourself in their place for a day...one day. How would you feel about being treated less than human?

I am ANGRY that the U.S. is supporting a country that even allows this kind of thing to go on. We support it militarily and financially! I used to be the "other side"...the "saved side" as you referenced earlier. I served in the U.S. Military and I was raised in a Southern Baptist Church. I used to believe that America fought to bring freedom in the world. I totally believe in the whole "Israel" propaganda, because I bought into it!

Not anymore. Thank GOD, I met my husband and traveled out of this country to see how self-centered and egotistical that kind of thinking is. THERE IS NOT ONE RELIGIOUS GROUP OR RACE OF PEOPLE THAT CAN CLAIM SUPERIORITY. Both "sides" have made grevious errors. Neither do I believe in bombing each other in to submission.

It's my fear that those that have led us into Iraq have taken us so far down the dark road that we won't be able to turn back.

Edited August 27, 2007 by allousa

[mawilson 2,133]

I just wonder, have you yourself been personally affected by what has happened? Have you been inside Gaza or the West Bank to even know what life is like there? Time and time again, I hear the same vile, racist and my religion or ethnicity is better than yours from people that have NEVER been to that part of the world and experienced first hand what goes on there.

To answer your question, yes - I've been to the West Bank and Gaza and I have seen

for myself the conditions of the Palestinians who live there. Granted, I was there before

the second Palestinian Intifada broke out, so things were a little different back then.

Far from perfect, but people did have food and water and electricity. Tourism flourished

and the economy was booming -- GDP growth was 7.5% in 1999 and early 2000. Then

came the Intifada and the Israeli response.

Remember, there are two sides to every story. While Israel is certainly complicit in the

oppression of the Palestinian people, the Palestinians' own leadership is largely to blame

for what's happening there today.